Mexico weekly ledger., 1887-03-03

business again. That was the PROPOSE
ton suggested to me by the Prosecut-
ing Attorney and defendants counsel
and | made the entry accordingly.
These indictments were put on my
docket by the Clerk as indictments for
selling liquor without license, and were
endorsed In that way on their backs.
When an indictment was returned by
the GRIND Jury,I did not stop the busi-
ness of the Court to read it and see
what it contained. did simply what
the statute required me to do-saw
that it was properly endorsed by the
foreman and signed by the Prosecuting
Attorney and handed it TO the Clerk. 4
When these cases were called up
did not know what the charge was, ex-
cept as shown by my docket. l supposed
the docket showed what the offense
charged was; but even if | had known
that the indictment was for selling
liquor without license, | would have
permitted the plea to be entered.
/ Just as I stated a while ago, as to
|other cases l treated Mr.. Robertson,
Mr.. Trimble, Mr.. Buckner and other
Prosecuting Attorneys in my circuit
in the same way, accepting their sug-
gestions as to the disposition of GRIM
inal cases. / had no reason to believe
they were corrupt in any way, and did
not think it my province to go out and
hunt up the testimony to see whether
they were making proper disposition
| of the cases. l had every reason to
believe then and / have every reason
to belive now that the Prosecuting At
torneys throughout my circuit always
did-so far as their conduct in court is
concerned-what they thought for the
best interest of the state, and Mr..
Robertson was as diligent, careful n
efficient as any of them"
STATE VS.. BEDELL.
In regard to this case Elijah Robin
son said: "The question in this case
was whether a fac by the city authorl-
ties barred a conviction by the state
for the same %offense. 1 held thatit did
not and assessed a fine against the de-
PENDANT. / stated to the attorneys
what my opinion was, but l had u
about it, and that the same question
could be raised on motion for new trial.
The cases was tried just as l was ready
to adjourn court for the term. Mr..
Robertson filed a motion for a new trial
and | took it under advisement as l
did a great many other motions, and the
attorneys promised to file briefs. Mr..
Buckner represented the State and
Mr.. Robertson the defendant. They
did not send me briefs, either side. The
Clerk omitted to put the motion on the
docket at the June term, and it passed
out of my mind and l thought no NOR
about it. They sent M no briefs and
there was nothing to call my attention
to the case. At the October term the
motion was docketed, but l overlooked
it; l did not notice it, and heard moth
ing more about it till | received a letter
from Mr.. Mosby, afttr the final adjourn.
ment of the last term of court l held
here. My recollection is that the let.
ter stated that Mr.. Buckner had re.
quested him to write TO me and request
me to dispose of the motion
in the case. l wrote back to him and
told him 1 could only dispose of the mo-
tion by consent, and that if he would see
Mr.. Robertson and get him to consent to
my disposing of the motion in vacation
would do so. 1 received a letter from
MoSby saying Robertson would not con.
sent, and that was the end of the matter
as far as l was concerned. If / had any
choice in the matter l was glad Robert.
son would not consent, because tina
would leave the legal question in the
case to be decided by Judge Hughes, ant
l entertain serious doubts as to whether
my conclusion in the matter was cor.
, rect. l will state in this connection
that Mr.. Robertson represented the de-
PENDANT and not the state in this case
and if my attention had been called tx
the motion l should not have appoint.
ed anyone to prosecute as thele wa
no occasion for such an appointment
As we'll as | remember there was NJ
dispute about the facts, it wa:
; merely a legal question; there was nc
controversy about his having sold tn
liquor without license, but the ques-
i ton was whether he could be fined by the
t city authorities and State authorities foI
the same offense. The case had beer
e tried and 1 had decided this question
t against the defendant, and in the absenc,
: of further authorities on the subjec
would have overruled his motion for
t new trial.
After committee had concluded its ex
animation of the records, Judge FORTS
made the announcement that any per
l son who desired to testify in reference
to the matter could do SO.
, Judge Robinson said hat he desired
l to say in addition to what he had al
ready said "The Grand Jury has flee
a report which has been construed b.,
! certain persons as a reflection on my
!. self and George Robertson, and tele
l grams to that effect have been sent t.
the Globe Democrat and Kansas CITY
l Times. The report does not in terms
reflect on us, but it is indefinite ant
that inference may be and has beer
drawn from it. We have no power t.
, compel these people, the members O
the Grand Jury and others, to com
here and testify. l was anxious to hav,
them come, but as they will not do so
wish to state a conversation / had with
Mr.. Buckley, who was foreman of the
Grand Jury. l came mere in response
to a telegram shortly after this repor'
had been filed and stated in open courI
among other things that I did no
think any member of the Grand Jury
with possibly n exception entertained
) any feeling against me, or had beef
actuated in making their report by
desire to injure me.
Afterward / met Mr.. Buckley he saiC
that SO far as he knew o a member
of the Grand Jury thought of reflect
ing on us when they filed their report